On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:22:27AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > > Unless you especially want to self-impose the same tight resolution > > > schedule > > > that 9.6 regressions experience, let's move this to the "Non-bugs" > section. > > > Which do you prefer? I don't think the opportunity for more > documentation > > > in > > > light of 7117685 constitutes a regression, and I don't want "Open > Issues" > > > to > > > double as a parking lot for slow-moving non-regressions. > > > > > > > Well, if we *don't* do the rewrite before we release it, then we have to > > instead put information about the new version of the functions into the > old > > structure I think. > > > > So I think it's an open issue. > > Works for me... > > [This is a generic notification.] > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Magnus, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this > open > item. If that responsibility lies elsewhere, please let us know whose > responsibility it is to fix this. Since new open items may be discovered > at > any time and I want to plan to have them all fixed well in advance of the > ship > date, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Please > present, within 72 hours, a plan to fix the defect within seven days of > this > message. Thanks. > I won't have time to do the bigger rewrite/reordeirng by then, but I can certainly commit to having the smaller updates done to cover the new functionality in less than a week. If nothing else, that'll be something for me to do on the flight over to pgconf.us. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
